See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327028210

A Concept for Measuring Effectiveness of Communication in Project Teams

Article in Journal of Economics and Management · September 2018

DOI: 10.22367/jem.2018.33.04

CITATIONS READS

13 11,464

1 author:

Karolina Muszynska
University of Szczecin
31 PUBLICATIONS 202 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Karolina Muszynska on 27 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Economics and Management
ISSN 1732-1948 Vol. 33 (3) • 2018

Karolina Muszyńska
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3474-828X
Institute of IT in Management
Faculty of Economics and Management
University of Szczecin, Szczecin, Poland
karolina.muszynska@usz.edu.pl

A concept for measuring effectiveness of communication

in project teams
doi: 10.22367/jem.2018.33.04
Accepted by Editor Ewa Ziemba | Received: October 1, 2017 | Revised: March 26, 2018; March 31,
2018 | Accepted: April 8, 2018.

Abstract

Aim/purpose – The aim of the paper is to introduce a concept for measuring effective-
ness of communication in project teams, taking into account 19 effectiveness aspects
which enables to evaluate individual communication effectiveness of each team member,
the overall communication effectiveness of a team or organization and to compare teams
or organizations for communication effectiveness. The results of a small scale study
serve as a proof of the proposed concept comprising the questionnaire and the way of
presenting its results.
Design/methodology/approach – First, a list of communication effectiveness aspects is
proposed, based on a literature review. They are additionally grouped into aspects de-
pendent on the sender, the recipient, and both. On the basis of the identified communica-
tion effectiveness aspects a questionnaire for measuring the level of communication
effectiveness is prepared and the way of presenting its results is demonstrated on a small
scale research sample. The case study is used to validate the presented concept.
Findings – The developed questionnaire, based on the identified communication effec-
tiveness aspects, together with the proposed form of presenting its results can be success-
fully applied to evaluate individual communication effectiveness of specific team mem-
bers, the overall communication effectiveness of a team or organization and to compare
teams or organizations for communication effectiveness.
Research implications/limitations – The presented concept enables a graphically en-
riched assessment of communication effectiveness of individual team members, whole
teams or organizations and also brings to the attention of the respondents the various
aspects which influence communication effectiveness. It should be, however, noted that
64 Karolina Muszyńska

the results of the questionnaire base on the declarations of the respondents, which makes
them subjective.
Originality/value/contribution – The proposed concept of measuring communication
effectiveness can be used as a tool for enhancing the communication effectiveness in
project teams where some flaws or infirmities are observed. It constitutes a comprehen-
sive way of tackling this problem by addressing an extensive list of communication
effectiveness aspects and provides clear and meaningful tools of presenting the results.

Keywords: communication effectiveness, project team, measuring communication

effectiveness, evaluation of communication effectiveness.
JEL Classification: D38, M14, M15.

1. Introduction

Effective communication is one of the main determinants of successful pro-

ject realization (Čulo & Scendrović, 2010). It is the lifeblood of any human rela-
tions and those constitute the basis of successful cooperation and joint realiza-
tion of tasks (Rajkumar, 2010). Zulch (2014) in her research proves that
effective communication is a foundation function that supports and integrates all
other project areas. To ensure effective project communication, it is, however,
essential to determine what it means that communication is effective and estab-
lish ways of measuring effectiveness. Generally speaking communication is
effective when it reaches its goals and accomplishes the intended purpose. But in
order to measure effectiveness, there is a need for a more specific and detailed
list of aspects characterizing effectiveness of the communication process.
There have not been much research done in that field with probably the
most significant study performed by the Construction Industry Institute which
developed the Communication Project Assessment Tool (Compass) focused on
measuring communication effectiveness in construction and engineering project
teams (Thomas, Tucker, & Kelly, 1999). There is also a study by Holzman
& Globerson (2003) which deals with the issue of measuring and evaluating
communication effectiveness in project teams. They, however, concentrate on
a limited scope of communication effectiveness aspects, such as: accuracy, time-
liness, completeness, barriers and volume, or are tailored to specific project
types and environment.
Therefore, the problem which is being addressed in the paper regards the
lack of methods or procedures for evaluating communication effectiveness in
project teams which would cover all important communication effectiveness
aspects and be applicable for any project type and team. Considering only se-
lected communication effectiveness aspects, as in the case of previously men-
 A concept for measuring effectiveness of communication… 65

tioned research, does not allow to see the whole picture of communication effec-
tiveness in a project team. The concept proposed in this paper strives to expand
the range of communication aspects taken into account in evaluating communi-
cation effectiveness and is applicable to different kind of projects and teams,
which makes it more universal.
The literature review section outlines hitherto research studies related with
communication effectiveness aspects and evaluation methods and introduces
a list of these aspects derived from a thorough analysis of the available literature.
In the research methodology section, the research procedure is described, includ-
ing the questionnaire structure and content as well as methods used for present-
ing the results. The research findings section presents results of applying the
concept on a small case study and comprises three subsections, each devoted to
one of the analyzed dimensions: individual communication effectiveness of each
respondent, overall communication effectiveness within an organization and
a comparison of communication effectiveness among the surveyed companies.
The discussion section emphasizes the most important implication of the study
and the conclusions section summarizes the achieved outcomes and suggests
future research.

2. Literature review

Communication is undoubtedly one of the most important areas in project

management, especially in distributed and multinational teams, what has been
confirmed by numerous researchers and practitioners (Ssenyange, Katerega,
Masaba, & Sebunya, 2017; Muszyńska, 2017 and works cited therein; Turku-
lainen, Aaltonen, & Lohikoski, 2016 and works cited therein; Wellman, 2012).
To communicate effectively, proper communication management schemes must
be adopted to ensure appropriate distribution and sharing of project information.
The stage of planning the project communication is crucial to define involved
parties, determine what information should be shared and decide about the most
convenient methods and tools supporting project communication (Taleb, Ismail,
Wahab, Mardiah, Rani, & Amat, 2017). It is also needed to establish understand-
ing, trust, build coordination and support from a variety of project personnel
(Ahimbisibwe & Nangoli, 2012). Effective communication is an essential factor
of project success, keeping project stakeholders on track to achieve project ob-
jectives and allowing to overcome issues and resolve conflicts during its realiza-
tion (Zulch, 2014; Ozierańska, Skomra, Kuchta, & Rola, 2016).
66 Karolina Muszyńska

In order to ensure effective project communication it is, however, necessary

to know what ‘effective’ communication means and how to measure it. Available
studies on project communication, communication management and project
management mention different features determining communication effective-
ness. Characterizing effective communication, Zulch (2014) mentions the fun-
damental role of feedback, the undeniable importance of understanding the mes-
sage and ensuring it reaches the target audience in time. She also underlines the
significance of ensuring the availability of communication records to those who
need it, providing open lines of communication between project stakeholders
and making best possible use of all occasions when team members meet with
each other.
Butt, Naaranoja, & Savolainen (2016) point out that effective communica-
tion is when stakeholders are timely communicated with the correct and relevant
information and additionally if that is done in a cost-effective manner. They also
notice that communication should be simple and duplicable and that asking for
feedback is a crucial method of finding out how our message was received.
Weaver (2007) also finds relevance, timeliness of communicated informa-
tion and feedback features crucial for effective communication, but additionally
stresses the truthfulness, honesty and credibility aspects. As equally important in
ensuring communication effectiveness, he indicates choosing the right medium
and messenger, and minimizing unnecessary noise in the transmission. One more
attribute of effective communication denoted by this author was achieving the
required or desired effect intended by the communication act.
Bourne (2016), in her research regarding targeted communication, indicates
that communication must be planned and implemented taking into account the
various approaches and preferences of stakeholders. There are also other essen-
tial aspects of effective communication mentioned in her study: ensuring that the
information achieves its intended purpose, defining the purpose of communica-
tion, personalizing the message to specific recipient, repeating the message for it
to achieve its intended outcome, making information easily accessible and using
multiple channels to deliver the information.
Bond-Barnard, Steyn, & Fabris-Rotelli (2013) repeat some of the effective
communication aspects mentioned by previous authors (properly used feedback
and using variety of media to boost conveyance of messages), but additionally
highlight high frequency of communication for building trust and the balance
between formal and informal communication.
Table 1 presents names and descriptions of 19 communication effectiveness
aspects together with selected literature sources where they were mentioned. The
literature analysis covered 51 items including books, journal papers, doctoral
 A concept for measuring effectiveness of communication… 67

dissertations and conference papers published between 1998 and 2018. The fol-
lowing words and phrases were entered to identify relevant sources, using the
Google Scholar search engine:
− ‘effective project communication’ (212 results),
− ‘effective communication aspects’ (18 results),
− ‘effective communication in project’ (45 results).
The displayed results were then filtered according to the actual relevancy to
the topic. In order to facilitate the filtering process additional searches were done
with the use of the phrase ‘effective project communication’ jointly with the
following words: ‘clarity’, ‘clear’, ‘prejudice’, ‘trust’, ‘tailor’, ‘communication
skill’, ‘commitment’, ‘purpose’, ‘accuracy’, ‘accurate’, ‘precise’, ‘access’,
‘communication plan’, ‘correct’. The identified aspects have been divided into
three groups depending on who has influence on a given aspect – the sender, the
recipient or both.

Table 1. Communication effectiveness aspects

Communication
effectiveness Description Literature source
aspect
1 2 3
Aspects dependent on the sender
Adu, 2004; Wooding, 2005; Barakat, 2009;
Nangoli, 2010; Nangoli, Namagembe, Ntayi,
& Ngoma, 2012; Natu & Kennedy, 2012;
making sure the information is Burger, 2013; Mnkandla, 2013; Meid, 2014;
Time aspect current and that the recipient gets Zulch, 2014; Aidoo, Aigbavboa, & Thwala,
it instantly 2015; Lys, 2015; Streich & Brennholt, 2015;
Freeman, 2016; Zulch, 2016; Ikechukwu,
Fidelis, & Celestine, 2017; Khabiqheya, 2017;
Liu & Li, 2017
Adu, 2004; Gutierrez, 2008; Natu & Kennedy,
providing correct information,
Correctness 2012; Liapaki, 2013; Lys, 2015; Streich & Brenn-
planning and checking what is
aspect holt, 2015; Freeman, 2016; Zulch, 2016;
communicated
Liu & Li, 2017
Gutierrez, 2008; Burger, 2013; Mnkandla,
well-thought-off and well planned
2013; Tzanakaki, 2013; Meid, 2014; Zulch,
Specificity aspect communication, also delivering
2014; Aidoo et al., 2015; Lys, 2015;
information incrementally
Khabiqheya, 2017; Liu & Li, 2017
making sure that communication Gutierrez, 2008; Meid, 2014; Zulch, 2014;
Accessibility
records are available for team Freeman, 2016; Zulch, 2016; Ikechukwu et al.,
aspect
members 2017; Khabiqheya, 2017; Liu & Li, 2017
finding out which communication Adu, 2004; Gutierrez, 2008; Nangoli, 2010;
Proper medium methods/channels/media are Bond-Barnard et al., 2013; Liapaki, 2013;
aspect preferred by the recipient; choos- Mnkandla, 2013; Meid, 2014; Aidoo et al., 2015;
ing the right messenger Lys, 2015; Freeman, 2016; Liu & Li, 2017
68 Karolina Muszyńska

Table 1 cont.
1 2 3
using multiple channels to deliver Adu, 2004; Wooding, 2005; Bond-Barnard
Multi-medium
the information (for better et al., 2013; Lys, 2015; Streich & Brennholt,
aspect
chances of achieving the goal) 2015; Zulch, 2016; Khabiqheya, 2017
Adu, 2004; Wooding, 2005; Gutierrez, 2008;
communicating clearly, precisely, Barakat, 2009; Nangoli, 2010; Liapaki, 2013;
Simplicity /
leaving no space for guesses and Tzanakaki, 2013; Meid, 2014; Zulch, 2014;
/ accuracy aspect
doubts Lys, 2015; Freeman, 2016; Ikechukwu et al.,
2017; Khabiqheya, 2017; Liu & Li, 2017
Purpose clarity defining the purpose of commu- Wooding, 2005; Streich & Brennholt, 2015;
aspect nication (addressing the ‘why’) Ikechukwu et al., 2017
achieving the required or desired Affare, 2012; Lys, 2015; Ikechukwu et al.,
Goal-achieving
effect by, e.g., repeating the 2017; Khabiqheya, 2017
aspect
message
Barakat, 2009; Bond-Barnard et al., 2013;
Formal-informal making sure both types of com-
Mnkandla, 2013; Tzanakaki, 2013; Zulch,
balance aspect munication are appropriately used
2014; Freeman, 2016; Khabiqheya, 2017
Aspects dependent on the recipient
putting personal effort in the Nangoli et al., 2012; Aidoo et al., 2015; Lys,
Engagement
communication process, 2015; Khabiqheya, 2017
aspect
commitment
Barakat, 2009; Nangoli, 2010; Affare, 2012;
individual communication Nangoli et al., 2012; Burger, 2013; Mnkandla,
Personality
predispositions, communication 2013; Zulch, 2014; Aidoo et al., 2015; Lys,
aspect
skills 2015; Freeman, 2016; Zulch, 2016; Liu & Li,
2017
Aspects dependent on both the sender and the recipient
Adu, 2004; Wooding, 2005; Gutierrez, 2008;
meaningfulness of information Affare, 2012; Bond-Barnard et al., 2013;
Intelligibility
to the recipient, fundamental role Liapaki, 2013; Zulch, 2014; Lys, 2015; Streich
aspect
of feedback & Brennholt, 2015; Freeman, 2016; Zulch,
2016; Khabiqheya, 2017; Liu & Li, 2017
providing open lines Affare, 2012; Zulch, 2014; Zulch, 2016;
Openness aspect of communication between Khabiqheya, 2017
communicating parties
Gutierrez, 2008; Barakat, 2009; Nangoli, 2010;
Relevancy / tailoring message to specific
Natu & Kennedy, 2012; Mnkandla, 2013;
/ personalization recipient, thinking from the
Meid, 2014; Zulch, 2014; Lys, 2015; Zulch,
aspect perspective of the recipient
2016; Khabiqheya, 2017; Liu & Li, 2017
providing information in a cost- Adu, 2004; Natu & Kennedy, 2012; Lys, 2015
-effective way, choosing the most
Cost-effectiveness
cost-saving methods/channels/
aspect
/medium which are acceptable to
the recipient
Adu, 2004; Wooding, 2005; Gutierrez, 2008;
honesty, trustfulness, achieved Barakat, 2009; Bond-Barnard et al., 2013;
Credibility aspect inter alia through high frequency Burger, 2013; Liapaki, 2013; Tzanakaki, 2013;
of communication Freeman, 2016; Zulch, 2016; Khabiqheya,
2017
 A concept for measuring effectiveness of communication… 69

Table 1 cont.
1 2 3
Past experience making good communication Wooding, 2005; Burger, 2013; Tzanakaki,
aspect atmosphere to get rid of prejudice 2013; Lys, 2015; Streich & Brennholt, 2015
Adu, 2004; Wooding, 2005; Affare, 2012;
Clarity / Nangoli et al., 2012; Liapaki, 2013; Tzanakaki,
minimizing unnecessary noise
/ undisturbedness 2013; Aidoo et al., 2015; Lys, 2015; Streich
in the transmission
aspect & Brennholt, 2015; Zulch, 2016; Ikechukwu
et al., 2017; Khabiqheya, 2017

The most significant research regarding measuring communication effec-

tiveness was done by the Construction Industry Institute (Thomas et al., 1999).
The developed Communications Project Assessment Tool (Compass) was de-
signed to enable project managers to assess project team communications during
the execution phases of an engineer-procure-construct project. The tool permits
detailed analysis through the scoring of six critical categories of communication:
accuracy, timeliness, completeness, understanding, barriers and procedures, and
targets three project groups: project management, engineering, and construction.
Information regarding all six communication categories comes from responses to
automated survey questionnaires prepared for each of the three project groups.
Two of them concentrate on design and engineering issues and the project man-
agement questionnaire captures overall project issues.
Another study on communication effectiveness evaluation considers only
four communication effectiveness aspects: completeness, accuracy, timing and
volume and relates them to nine outputs of the communication process as de-
fined by PMBoK (Holzman & Globerson, 2003).
The main motivation for developing the concept of measuring communica-
tion effectiveness presented in this paper was the limitation of communication
effectiveness aspects taken into account in previous studies or applicability only
to specific project types.

3. Research methodology

The research procedure comprises two main stages. The first one includes
preparation of a questionnaire based on the aspects of effective project communica-
tion described in the previous section, and the second one proposes a set of rules and
graphical tools to present the results. The questionnaire is divided into four sections –
the first section with 22 questions concerns the communication effectiveness aspects
dependent mainly on the sender. The second section contains 4 questions relating to
the aspects dependent mainly on the recipient. The third section, with 12 questions,
70 Karolina Muszyńska

concentrates on the communication effectiveness features influenced by both the

sender and the recipient and the last section collects information about the kind of
projects realized within the organization and the size of teams realizing them. Table
2 lists the questions from the first three sections of the questionnaire, assigned to
corresponding communication effectiveness aspects.

Table 2. Questions regarding different communication effectiveness aspects

included in the questionnaire
Questions addressing the aspects of communication effectiveness dependent on the sender
1 2
Do you make sure to send/provide only up-to-date information?
Do you check promptly if the recipient received and acknowledged the message
Time aspect you sent/provided?
Do you make sure that information available to the stakeholders is up-to-date?
(on webpages, intranet, wiki)
Do you double-check messages sent/information provided regarding its logic
Correctness and linguistic correctness? (to avoid mistakes, ambiguity, etc.)
aspect Do you use spell/grammar checking tools? (especially when writing messages
in a foreign language)
Is a communication plan developed for the projects you realize? (to avoid
Specificity inconsistency, chaos, omissions, etc.)
aspect Is a meeting agenda prepared for each meeting?
Is the meeting agenda followed during the meetings?
Do you make sure all interested stakeholders have access to appropriate project
Accessibility information?
aspect Do you make sure all interested stakeholders have access to tools they need for
communication?
Do you ask stakeholders about their favorite communication medium?
Proper medium Do you tailor the medium of the message to specific stakeholder (group)?
aspect Do you analyze what kind of messenger (person, tool) is the most appropriate
to communicate with a specific stakeholder?
Multi-medium Do you use multiple media/methods to deliver the same information/message?
aspect (to increase the probability of reaching the receiver)
Simplicity / Do you formulate your messages in such a way that the receivers do not ask you
/ accuracy to repeat/clarify them?
aspect Do the recipients answer your messages as if they understood them properly?
Purpose clarity Do you plan the purpose of your communication? (what you want to achieve)
aspect Do you inform the recipients of the message about the goal you want to achieve?
Goal-achieving Do your recipients act accordingly to your expectations? (do you achieve the expected
aspect outcome?)
Do you use formal forms of communication with project stakeholders? (reports,
Formal-informal proceedings, etc.)
balance aspect Do you also use informal forms of communication with project stakeholders?
Do you communicate with project stakeholders concerning non-project topics?
Questions addressing the aspects of communication effectiveness dependent on the recipient
Engagement Do you engage actively in reading the messages you receive or listening to someone
aspect talking?
Do you find it easy to communicate with other people?
Personality
Do you find it easy to control your emotions?
aspect
Do you find it easy to make others do what you ask/tell them?
 A concept for measuring effectiveness of communication… 71

Table 2 cont.
1 2
Questions addressing the aspects of communication effectiveness dependent
on both the sender and the recipient
Intelligibility Do you ask your recipients for feedback on your messages?
aspect Do you provide feedback to messages you receive?
Do you keep open communication with all stakeholders? (without withholding
Openness aspect
information and/or excluding stakeholders)
Do you know who is the receiver of the information/reports/documents you produce?
Relevancy /
Do you communicate your needs concerning the scope, form and frequency
/ personalization
of communication?
aspect
Do you tailor your communication routines to specific stakeholders (groups)?
Cost-
-effectiveness Do you analyze the cost effectiveness of communication methods?
aspect
Do you communicate honestly?
Credibility
Do you maintain regular contact with your stakeholders? (to be able to make the best
aspect
possible predictions about the future of the project)
Do you actively work against prejudice in project communication?
Past experience
Do you try to make your past negative experiences with a specific stakeholder not
aspect
influence your communication with them?
Clarity /
/ undisturbed- Do you actively eliminate any disruptions hindering the process of communication?
ness aspect

All the questions are close-ended and there are five possible answers for
each question, wherein the first answer on the list indicates poor communication
effectiveness while the last one reflects the most effective approach to commu-
nication. For example, to the question: ‘Do you communicate your needs con-
cerning the scope, form and frequency of communication?’, the possible answers
are: ‘nearly never/never’, ‘seldom’, ‘sometimes’, ‘usually’, ‘nearly always/
always’. For some questions the answers are a bit modified, for example to the
question: ‘Do you tailor the medium of the message to a specific stakeholder
(group)?’, the possible answers are: ‘nearly never/never’, ‘sometimes in case of
particularly important stakeholders and never in case of less important ones’,
‘sometimes’, ‘always in case of particularly important stakeholders and some-
times in case of less important ones’, ‘nearly always/always’.
The second stage of the procedure describes how the results obtained on the
basis of the questionnaire can be analyzed and presented in three dimensions: the
individual communication effectiveness of each respondent, the overall commu-
nication effectiveness within an organization/team and the comparison of com-
munication effectiveness among the surveyed companies/teams.
The individual communication effectiveness is determined by comparing
the answers provided by a given respondent to the reference model. The refer-
72 Karolina Muszyńska

ence model assumes three levels of communication effectiveness: high, medium

and low. Reference percentages for each level are presented in Table 3. Ques-
tions regarding the specificity aspect should not be included as they do not cor-
respond to the individual habits and approach of a given respondent.

Table 3. Reference percentages of communication effectiveness reference model

Reference percentage for most favorable
and most unfavorable answers
Level of communication effectiveness Answers 1 & 2 (unfavorable) Answers 4 & 5 (favorable)
High < 10% > 70%
Medium < 20% > 50%
Low ≥ 20% ≤ 50%

The overall communication effectiveness within an organization/team is

measured by aggregating the number of all five types of answers (ranging from
those testifying high communication effectiveness to those indicating low com-
munication effectiveness) for all questions from the first three sections. The re-
sults are illustrated with a graph.
Comparison of the overall communication effectiveness among the sur-
veyed organizations/teams is based on comparing the aggregated values for an-
swers 1 & 2, 4 & 5 and answer 3 among all compared companies/teams and is
also presented on a graph.

4. Research findings

In order to validate the presented concept of measuring effectiveness of

communication in project teams, a small scale study was conducted. Within the
first stage of the procedure, the questionnaire was prepared and distributed in an
online form to four project-based companies. A total of 23 respondents (from 5
to 7 from each company) filled in the questionnaire. The analysis of the results
for this case study, which constitutes the second stage of the procedure, is pre-
sented in the subsequent subsections.

4.1. Questionnaire results for individual team members

Individual communication effectiveness was assessed by investigating re-

sponses of each respondent and comparing the results to the reference model de-
scribed in the previous section. Figure 1 presents the percentage of the favorable
(5 and 4) and unfavorable (1 and 2) answers provided by each surveyed person.
 A concept for measuring effectiveness of communication… 73

Comparison of the results of respondents with the reference model shows

that only four of them have high communication effectiveness, 12 – medium and
others (7) have low communication effectiveness due to too high percentage of
unfavorable answers (three out of those seven persons had also too low percent-
age of favorable answers).

Figure 1. Individual communication effectiveness of the surveyed team members

P23
P22
P21
P20
P19
P18
P17
P16
P15
P14
P13
P12
P11
P10
P9
P8
P7
P6
P5
P4
P3
P2
P1
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Answers 1 & 2 Anwers 5 & 4

4.2. Questionnaire results from the company’s perspective

Respondents from company A hardly ever chose answers indicating the

lowest efficiency of communication (answers 1) – there were only 7 such an-
swers (about 2%). The majority of answers (about 46%) were answers pointing
to quite high efficiency of communication habits and processes of team members
employed in this company (answers 4), 24% were medium (answers 3) and
about 16% of answers indicated a very high communication efficiency (answers 5).
74 Karolina Muszyńska

Answers of the respondents from company B were quite evenly distributed

regarding answers 4 and 5 – 33% and 34% respectively, with 18% of answers 3
and 10% the least favorable ones (answers 1).
In company C, similarly as in company A, there was a strong dominance of
answers 4 (41%), with 26% most favorable answer, 14% of the middle one and
8% of the least favorable one.
Company D had the same percentage of answers 4 as company C, about
21% each of answers 5 and 3 and nearly 10% of the worse answers.
Graphical representation of the results can be seen in Figure 2.

Figure 2. Results of the questionnaire with regard to each company

4.3. Comparison of the questionnaire results among the surveyed

companies

Comparison of the questionnaire results among the surveyed companies

shows percentage of aggregated values of answers 4 & 5, 1 & 2 and the middle
answer 3 provided by the employees of each company. The comparison can be
seen on Figure 3.
 A concept for measuring effectiveness of communication… 75

The highest and almost identical percentage of the most favorable answers
(4 & 5) was obtained by companies B and C, but it was also company C that had
the highest percentage of the least desired answers (1 & 2). Company A has the
highest percentage of the middle answer (3).

Figure 3. Comparison of survey results among companies

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
COMPANY A COMPANY B COMPANY C COMPANY D

answers 1 & 2 answer 3 answers 4 & 5

5. Discussion

The main goal of the small scale study described in the previous section
was to validate and present the usefulness of the concept for measuring commu-
nication effectiveness in project teams. It can be successfully applied to measure
and analyze communication effectiveness of individual team members, the
whole company/team and to compare the communication effectiveness among
companies or teams. The intention was to propose how communication effec-
tiveness can be measured and evaluated and that it can be a way to assess com-
munication effectiveness of particular team members, different project teams and
whole organizations.
It is, however, important to have in mind a certain weakness of the pre-
sented concept, which is due to the fact that the obtained answers reflect only
declarative communication habits and behavior of the surveyed team members
which are not confirmed otherwise. As some studies prove, the discrepancy be-
tween declarations and reality can be quite big (Szyjewski & Fabisiak, 2017).
76 Karolina Muszyńska

But despite this frailty, the proposed concept of measuring communication

effectiveness may help to identify possible problem areas regarding communica-
tion, as well as bring to the attention of the respondents all important aspects of
the communication process which they may have not been aware of.

6. Conclusions

6.1. Research contribution

The concept of measuring communication effectiveness in project teams in-

troduced in the paper and exemplified with a small scale study offers an easy to
use method for evaluating and monitoring communication effectiveness of indi-
vidual team members, whole teams/organizations and comparing communication
effectiveness between teams/companies with respect to 19 communication effec-
tiveness aspects. The results are presented in a graphical form, which facilitates
their analysis. So far, no similar tool for measuring effectiveness of communica-
tion in project teams has been proposed in the literature.

6.2. Research implication

The presented proof of concept confirms that it is possible to measure

communication effectiveness in a full range of aspects affecting it in a fast and
uncomplicated way. The proposed concept may prove beneficial for project
teams to access their communication habits, find possible problem areas or no-
tice communication effectiveness aspects which are being neglected. The com-
prehensive list of aspects that influence project communication effectiveness
identified through an in-depth analysis of available literature may be used in
future research regarding communication in projects.

6.3. Research limitation and future works

The weakness of the proposed concept lies in the declarative character of

the information provided by the respondents concerning their communication
habits and behaviors. That is why future research could include some form of
verification of the obtained declarations. This could be done by the analysis of
communication records (email, logs, messages, documents, etc.), communication
networks or in-depth interviews. All these methods are, however, highly time-
consuming and demanding, that is why their usage should depend on the seri-
ousness of the communication problems in a given project team or organization.
 A concept for measuring effectiveness of communication… 77

References

Adu, J. (2004). Communication in the delivery of projects in multicultural environments.

Doctoral dissertation, University of Technology, Sydney. Retrieved from https://
opus.lib.uts.edu.au/handle/10453/20173
Affare, M. A. W. (2012). An assessment of project communication management on con-
struction projects in Ghana. Master of Business Administration thesis, Kwame
Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana. Retrieved from
http://ir.knust.edu.gh/xmlui/handle/123456789/4897
Ahimbisibwe, A., & Nangoli, S. (2012). Using the behavioural factors to explain per-
ceived project performance of Ugandan citizenship projects: A multivariate analy-
sis. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 3(10), 208-224.
Aidoo, B. M., Aigbavboa, C. O., & Thwala, W. D. (2015). Project communication
within small and medium-sized construction firms. Proceedings of The 4th World
Construction Symposium 2015, 404-409.
Barakat, T. A. H. (2009). A hybrid model of communication and information manage-
ment in mega construction projects in Dubai using a new critical success factor
approach. Doctoral dissertation, Loughborough University, UK. Retrieved from
https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/dspace-jspui/handle/2134/6384
Bond-Barnard, T. J., Steyn, H., & Fabris-Rotelli, I. (2013). The impact of a call centre
on communication in a programme and its projects. International Journal of Pro-
ject Management, 31, 1006-1016. doi: 10.1016/ j.ijproman.2012.12.012
Bourne, L. (2016). Targeted communication: The key to effective stakeholder engage-
ment. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 226, 431-438. doi: 10.1016/
j.sbspro.2016.06.208
Burger, M. (2013). Project management in the built environment: The need for industry
specific knowledge. Doctoral dissertation, University of the Free State, Bloemfon-
tein. Retrieved from http://scholar.ufs.ac.za:8080/xmlui/handle/11660/1457
Butt, A., Naaranoja, M., & Savolainen, J. (2016). Project change stakeholder communi-
cation. International Journal of Project Management, 34(8), 1579-1595. doi:
10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.08.010
Čulo, K., & Skendrović, V. (2010). Communication management is critical for project
success. Informatologia, 43(3), 228-235.
Freeman, J. (2016). Effective construction project communications. Doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Retrieved from https://open.uct.ac.za
/handle/11427/20714
Gutierrez, A. (2008). Selected collaboration tools that address the communication chal-
lenges faced by virtual team leaders. Master thesis, University of Oregon, OR. Re-
trieved from https://scholarsbank.uoregon.edu/xmlui/handle/1794/7655
Holzmann, V., & Globerson, S. (2003). Evaluating communication effectiveness in
a project environment. PMI® Global Congress 2003 – EMEA, The Hague, South
Holland, The Netherlands. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
78 Karolina Muszyńska

Ikechukwu, A. C., Fidelis, I. E., & Celestine, O. A. (2017). Effective communication as

a panacea for conflict avoidance in public building construction project delivery.
International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering & Management, 3(3),
38-53.
Khabiqheya, K. (2017). An evaluation of communication tools in a hierarchical training
institution: The case of a police academy in the Western Cape. Doctoral disserta-
tion, Cape Peninsula University of Technology, Cape Town, South Africa. Re-
trieved from http://etd.cput.ac.za/handle/20.500.11838/2544
Liapaki, A. G. (2013). Improve communication quality: A challenge in Greek shipping
companies. Master thesis, City University of Seattle, WA. Retrieved from http://
okeanis.lib.puas.gr/xmlui/handle/123456789/59
Liu, G., & Li, H. (2017). Project management and planning. In Offshore Platform Inte-
gration and Floatover Technology. Springer Tracts in Civil Engineering (pp. 153-
189). Singapore: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-3617-0_7
Lys, O. (2015). Planning project communications: How it works? Master thesis, KTH
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm. Retrieved from http://kth.diva-portal.
org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A827853&dswid=-8467
Meid, A. (2014). An engineering management analysis of communication management
systems in an organization that supplies the mining industry. Doctoral dissertation,
University of Johannesburg, South Africa. Retrieved from https://ujcontent.uj.ac.
za/vital/access/manager/Repository/uj:13622
Mnkandla, E. (2013). A review of communication tools and techniques for successful
ICT projects. The African Journal of Information Systems, 6(1), 1-8.
Muszyńska, K. (2017). Patterns of communication management in project teams. In
E. Ziemba (Ed.), Information technology for management. New ideas and real so-
lutions. 14th Conference, AITM 2016 and 11th Conference ISM 2016, held as Part
of FedCSIS Gdańsk, Poland. Revised Selected Papers (pp. 202-221). Lecture Notes
in Business Information Processing, Vol. 277, Berlin: Springer International Pub-
lishing AG. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-53076-5_11
Nangoli, S. (2010). Project communication, individual commitment, social networks and
perceived project performance: A study of citizenship projects in selected commer-
cial banks. Doctoral dissertation, Makerere University, Kampala. Retrieved from
http://makir.mak.ac.ug/handle/10570/2397
Nangoli, S., Namagembe, S., Ntayi, J. M., & Ngoma, M. (2012). Towards building pro-
ject-stakeholder commitment: Case study – citizenship projects in Uganda. World
Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development, 8(4),
233-245. doi: 10.1108/20425961211276615
Natu, A., & Kennedy, D. (2012). A simulation study of project management and col-
laborative information technologies. Proceedings of the Eighteenth Americas Con-
ference on Information Systems, Seattle, 1-9.
Ozierańska, A., Skomra, A., Kuchta, D., & Rola, P. (2016). The critical factors of Scrum
implementation in IT project – the case study. Journal of Economics and Manage-
ment 25(3), 79-96. doi: 10.22367/jem.2016.25.06
 A concept for measuring effectiveness of communication… 79

Rajkumar, S. (2010). Art of communication in project management. PMI® Research

Conference: Defining the future of project management, Washington, DC. New-
town Square, PA: Project Management Institute.
Ssenyange, K., Katerega, Y. N., Masaba, A. K., & Sebunya, A. (2017). Project commu-
nication a dimension for improved project performance: The case of selected public
university projects. Journal of Resources Development and Management, 30, 77-84.
Streich, R., & Brennholt, J. (2015). Communication in projects. In Applied Psychology
for Project Managers (pp. 53-72). Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer.
Szyjewski, G., & Fabisiak, L. (2017). Survey as a source of low quality research data.
M. Ganzha, L. Maciaszek, M. Paprzycki (Eds.), Proceedings of the 2017 Federated
Conference on Computer Science and Information Systems (Vol. 11, pp. 939-943).
New Jersey, NJ: ACSIS,. doi: 10.15439/2017F266
Taleb, H., Ismail, S., Wahab, M. H., Mardiah, W. N., Rani, W. M., & Amat, R. C. (2017).
An overview of project communication management in construction industry pro-
jects. Journal of Management, Economics, and Industrial Organization, 1(1), 1-8.
Thomas, S. R., Tucker, R. L., & Kelly, W. R. (1999). Compass: An assessment tool for
improving project team communications. Project Management Journal, 30(4), 15-24.
Turkulainen, V., Aaltonen, K., & Lohikoski, P. (2016). Managing project stakeholder
communication: The Qstock Festival case. Project Management Journal, 46(6),
74-91. doi: 10.1002/pmj.21547
Tzanakaki, E. (2013). Communication and collaboration in School SA Company (de-
partment: issues & competition). Master thesis, City University of Seattle, WA. Re-
trieved from http://okeanis.lib.puas.gr/xmlui/handle/123456789/577
Weaver, P. (2007). Getting the ‘soft stuff’ right – effective communication is the key to
successful project outcomes. PMI Global Congress (North America). Retrieved from
https://mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF_Papers/P055_Getting_the_Soft_Stuff_ Right.pdf
Wellman, J. (2012). Eight habits of successful project teams. Employment Relations
Today, 39(1), 37-44. doi: 10.1002/ert.21353
Wooding, A. (2005). The impact of language and communication of meaning on ICT
development projects. Doctoral dissertation, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Retrieved from http://dspace.opencollab.co.za/handle/123456789/4395
Zulch, B. G. (2014). Communication: The foundation of project management. Procedia
Technology, 16, 1000-1009. doi: 10.1016/j.protcy.2014.10.054
Zulch, B. G. (2016). A proposed model for construction project management communi-
cation in the South African construction industry. Acta Structilia, 23(1), 1-35.

View publication stats